Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes Choice wrote:

blind denial blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial .blind denial ..

Hobbes is just typical of posters on Philosophy Now who only see religion as something to emotionally and blindly deny with as much negativity as possible. He is not alone. He is joined by those like Arising uk, flashdangerpants. And others. They need their own thread where they can bask in various states of denial and this thread is documenting their official United States of Blind Denial. Hobbes has already created its flag posted above. They are invited to chant the flag twice a day before posting anything so as not to lose the feeling and their dedication to blind denial. They will be invited to discuss everything between the most active states of denial to the most passive and describe the almost orgasmic thrill they get from all the different states of blind denial.

Their dedication to blind denial deserves this consideration. it isn't easy maintaining so much negativity but they have become skilled at it and this thread can allow them to feed off of each other's negativity and participate together in the satisfactions of collective blind denial.

passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive. passive-aggressive.

Maybe a light-hearted thread actually will shift attention a single degree, maybe less.

Negativity is the meat and potatoes though.

It's the knee-jerk.

Crazy thing is, if philosophers were involved, philosophical principles would result from the dynamics of that particular situation, or any situation.

That sort of thing must happen on Mt. Olympus, or in books.

Honestly, I think the old boring bickering will dominate the pie chart.

*

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_ ... oke-139982


WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.

Walker wrote:

Maybe a light-hearted thread actually will shift attention a single degree, maybe less.

Negativity is the meat and potatoes though.

It's the knee-jerk.

It may be but how does it further philosophy?

"Rudeness is the weak [person's] imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

The emotional blind deniers try to appear strong and they think the way to do it is to be as rude as possible. They can curse me out and they can curse out Simone but in the end as Hoffer said, it is just a weak person's imitation of strength. So why not invite them to post their rudeness here so as to get it out of their system and then other threads can become more substantial?

I'm sure stranger things have happened.

What passes for discussion is mostly just a game of button pushing, which is integration practice for the control panel.

I really don't see much passing for philosophy.

It could well be the case that many of those being called "blind deniers" have given a lot of thought to the question of religion at some time. just because they reject religion on the spot, here and now, doesn't mean they have not thoroughly considered it previously.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

At what stage of life do self-righteous, psychopathic, uneducated, hypocritical faux-religious lives matter? To me? Never. They are a fucking waste of oxygen.

This is a fine example of the kind of post that belongs on this thread. Notice the scope of blind denial; the universality of condemnation. Well done.

Nick_A wrote:Hobbes is just typical of posters on Philosophy Now who only see religion as something to emotionally and blindly deny with as much negativity as possible. He is not alone. He is joined by those like Arising uk, flashdangerpants. And others. ...

What are you burbling about now. What is it about 'religion' that I am emotionally and blindly denying? In fact what 'religion' are you talking about? And what negativity, you mean because I don't agree with your belief that there is your 'God'?

They need their own thread where they can bask in various states of denial and this thread is documenting their official United States of Blind Denial. ...

Unlike you I feel no need to proselytize at all.

Hobbes has already created its flag posted above. They are invited to chant the flag twice a day before posting anything so as not to lose the feeling and their dedication to blind denial. They will be invited to discuss everything between the most active states of denial to the most passive and describe the almost orgasmic thrill they get from all the different states of blind denial.

Their dedication to blind denial deserves this consideration. it isn't easy maintaining so much negativity but they have become skilled at it and this thread can allow them to feed off of each other's negativity and participate together in the satisfactions of collective blind denial.

Blind denial about what? Are you saying that your 'God' exists'? If so I don't believe you. Are you saying that religious belief is necessary for some psychological reason? Well maybe but since I appear to be getting on okay without it I'd have to disagree that it is necessary, now if others want it then fine but they really ought to shut-up on a philosophy forum about how this makes them some kind of special 'truth-seeker' with the rest of us in denial of some sort as they have obviously not read Kant nor take any account that there have been numerous religions and 'God's' in history and so far not one has been shown to exist in any sense of actually existing.

Arising, if you ever wanted to be involved in a meaningful discussion on philosophy or religion you could do so. But you prefer to become emotional and bask in negativity and blind denial. This thread gives you the opportunity to to emote with all the negativity you can muster without interfering with others desiring more intelligent discussion. So just emote to your heart's content. This is your opportunity.

Nick_A wrote:This thread gives you the opportunity to to emote with all the negativity you can muster without interfering with others desiring more intelligent discussion.

That clears it up.

It’s a place for folks stuck on no.

For example, this may give a chuckle to even the big brains of the outfit pacing and pondering in the hallowed halls of philosophy, though it's probably a distraction for the deep thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yX_1gJ_51M

Would you say that snarky questions would also qualify as appropriate fodder for the thread?

Thing is, in the game of golf players call penalties on themselves.
And they play for a lot of money.

Unless such integrity and self-reflection is utilized here, the thread will either be abandoned or it will trap one or two who respect the intent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGke0uJ9ojA

Walker wrote:

Would you say that snarky questions would also qualify as appropriate fodder for the thread?

Yes of course. This thread will profit from classic examples from the past and present in the glorification of blind denial. They can serve as inspiration.

This can be the thread where nick and Walker store all their bitterness about people not accepting their garbled fantasies as equally valid to properly constructed arguments.

Enjoy your 69 thread boys.

FlashDangerpants wrote:This can be the thread where nick and Walker store all their bitterness about people not accepting their garbled fantasies as equally valid to properly constructed arguments.

Enjoy your 69 thread boys.

Get it out. And then leave it here, you sick fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpVOXITW-Xc